Jump to content


Photo

How Does One Falsify Vaporware?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:04 PM

K. Here are a few, organized by which item they're meant to support:
1. Grab some DNA from a population of wild rabbits. Next generation, do it again. Rinse and repeat a few times, then compare your results and see if the genes changed between generations.
2. Toss a fast-reproducing animal (guppies are my standard example, I know this has been done with guppies) into a moderately different environment from the one it came from. Leave for a few generations, then come back and see if the population as a whole has shifted to become better-adapted to its new environment.
3. Using fossils, genetic markers, and whatever means are available, statistically reconstruct a bunch of different trees describing the paths of descent by which modern life might have come into being. See if these trees match fairly well, or at least if they indicate a coherent, central pattern that may be blurred by other factors.
I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: please don't respond that experiment 3 has been performed and has failed to pan out. I disagree, and that's an issue for another thread. The point here is simply that there exists an experiment which can be performed. That's all you asked for, and it's all that can be reasonably expected of a bare-bones definition of a theory.

I find it odd that you ask for a theory, scoff at evolutionists for being unable to produce one, and then when I actually give you a theory, you say I'm "cluttering up the thread." I'm not asking you to construct a theory from my scraps; I gave you a complete and working, if minimal, theory in response to your request.

Thanks. I forgot about that bit somehow - those posts really clear up my side question.

I find this claim puzzling. Could you describe for me a system of beliefs which incorporates all of the above and still does not count as evolutionist? Denying abiogenesis would not work, since abiogenesis deals with the origin as opposed to the development of life; there are evolutionists who believe that "God made the first life form and all life evolved from that common ancestor," even if that's not the majority view.

In summary, I've given you an experiment which could be applied to each of my three items, and despite your assertion to the contrary, I maintain that anyone who believes all three items is an evolutionist (it shouldn't be hard to provide me at least one counter-example if this is not true). Do I need to do anything else to prove that my theory is indeed a working one?

View Post



Here is another experiment where evolution has great predictive power.

1. Go to 100 random spots in the world that have fossil material and perform radiometric dating. Use one of the techniques described here in Table 1 depending on the rough date range and the material used.
http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

2. Make sure that that the date is appropriate for the method (e.g. a meaningful date for Carbon dating is between about 200 and 30,000 years). Other methods have other date ranges that provide meaningful answers. Repeat this process several times to see if the date is reliable (in most places it is).

3. From the date that you get, grab a book on paleontology and predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and predict the kind that you will not find.

4. Pick up any creationist book and use that to predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and the kind that you will not find.

This is the general approach leads to accurate predictions (it is the basis of paleontology). The approach has also led to the discovery of new transitional fossils. Neil Shubin went off to a specific place in the arctic that had rocks from fresh water streams that had dated from at 375 million years. They were looking for animals that bridged the transition between fish and tretrapod. They found Tiktaalik where their theory predicted the fossils could be found.
http://revcom.us/a/1...terview-en.html

This next year they are going to visiting rocks between 370 million and 365 million years in an attempt to find fossils of animals closer to the tetrapod end of the transition. There are no guarantees, but these sorts of predictions have been made hundreds of times and I'll bet the success is better than any creationist model out there. Anyone want to predict what they will find this year?

James
Posted Image

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:23 PM

Here is another experiment where evolution has great predictive power.

View Post

Just what "theory" do you propose to test by this non-experiment.

There are no guarantees, but these sorts of predictions have been made hundreds of times and I'll bet the success is better than any creationist model out there. Anyone want to predict what they will find this year?

James

"No guarantees" = no falsification potential, even if you had a "theory".

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:58 PM

Gah! The theory of evolution predicts some method of genetic change and recombination. If such a mechanism was not apparent, the TOE would have died with the advent of modern genetics. But there ARE mutations and there IS S@xual recombination. This particular point is so glaringly obvious that I can't believe you're even arguing it.

I don't think you know what I'm arguing. You might read again.

Then again, maybe you do. Who can say? Evolutionology doesn't always provide quick answers.

At this point, you're really just begging the question with your responses. I list a prediction, you say "That doesn't work - if the prediction doesn't pan out, scientists can just ignore the bad results and assume the conditions weren't right." By this logic, I can prove that no scientific theory exists. Nothing is a prediction if "the theorists might ignore it if it turns out to be wrong" is a valid criticism.

View Post

Wrong. I never suggested that scientists should just ignore results of valid experiments. You're confusing issues.

Also, I'm considering the Russian thistle. It isn't especially enlightening, since you've provided no further direction as to what about it I'm supposed to consider. While I'm working on that, you can consider the fact that, despite your bizarre assertions to the contrary, natural selection has been observed and documented beyond any reasonable doubt, and even most creationist theories take limited natural selection (i.e. microevolution) into account. Last time I brought in three sources to back up this claim, I don't think I got a response from you, but here's my favorite for the sake of the readers:
A Paper Citing 993 Instances of Documented Natural Selection
Again, this item is not under serious dispute from either side of the debate. I just include it because it's a crucial principle for the theory of evolution.

How is anyone to know if it's crucial without seeing the "theory"?

Now, for the benefit of readers, I'll point out that out of this 993-piece argument-from-spam, you have not chosen even one example you have enough confidence in to present it in the appropriate thread.

And you did get a response from me. I don't like to cooperate with attempts to sidetrack discussions. It's bad form. Not as bad as making such attempts, but still...

We've been over this before, but the trees are not subjective, and the artists have not been "trained."

Who's benefit is that one for? I hate to think such a moron exists.

The trees are generated using statistical methods of comparing similarities.

There's an old saying about where statistics rate in the hierarchy of lies. As I recall, they're not on the bottom rung of the ladder.

These methods have their roots in mathematics and were created without a thought toward proving or disproving evolution. By implying otherwise, you do a discredit to the scientists running these experiments and show your own misunderstanding of the issues at hand.

I do? Oh my!

It doesn't matter here, though, because a theory just requires a prediction, and no one can deny that "the trees should look similar" IS a prediction, whether or not it's a correct one.

I didn't ask for a prediction. I asked for an experiment with the potential to falsify. Asking opinions is not conducting relevant experiments.

I'm amazed that you presume to know what evolutionists would and would not accept as evidence.

Bah! Anyone can make simple observations. It isn't hard.

You err to say 'would', when 'do' applies.

#44 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:03 PM

If you can find me quotes from actual evolutionists implying that my predictions are not necessary aspects of the TOE, then by all means present them. The problem is, you CAN'T find such quotes, because the predictions I offered ARE essential to the TOE, and your only arguments to the contrary have been warrantless denials, misinterpretations of experimental procedures, and cryptic references to tumbleweeds.

Hmmm. Somehow I had the impression we were discussing your little 3-piece toy. If there is a "TOE", I'd prefer to discuss it.

In almost every thread I've debated you in, you've at one point or another defaulted to saying "why you're wrong is common knowledge, so I won't bother explaining it." Why I'm wrong is not common knowledge, and saying "look into persecuted scientists" doesn't even begin to tell me why you're making this claim. I hereby assert that you are wrong, and I'm backed up by the thousands of scientists who believe in the TOE. If you're right, you should be able to provide me at least some shred of evidence (or even a counter-example!) demonstrating why.

I suppose in a broad sense one could refer to those who believe in "TOE" as 'scientists'. I didn't know so many had chosen to back your assertion. I suppose I should be flattered.

Again, if you can win this debate just by asserting that my theory isn't sufficient, there is literally no way I can win. That doesn't make you look good, it just makes you look defensive.

View Post

I can lose this debate the instant someone presents a "theory of evolution" that comes reasonably close to being scientific.

#45 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:05 PM

CTD, all my qualms with you can be summarized by your last post of responses. Here they are:

Hmmm. Somehow I had the impression we were discussing your little 3-piece toy. If there is a "TOE", I'd prefer to discuss it.

This is a response to my accusing you of refuting my claims with warrantless denials, devoid of any actual claim and unsubstantiated by the literature. The observant among us will notice that THIS RESPONSE IS ITSELF A WARRANTLESS DISMISSAL. When I present a basic TOE, you seem to believe that an adequate response is "that's neither scientific nor sufficient." The problem is, I've given you everything you said ought to be in a good theory. You want predictions? I listed three experiments, one for each item in the theory, and said exactly what evolutionists would predict from those experiments. Your response? Basically, "If these predictions are proven wrong, maybe the evolutionists won't admit it." This is a ludicrous response, because as I said, it could apply to any theory anywhere about anything.

I guess you also argued that my tree experiment doesn't count because statistics can't be trusted. This is also an absurd argument - the vast majority of experimental science hinges on statistics for things like error bars, filtering noise from the data, etc. If experiments relying on statistics cannot test legitimate predictions, then you can throw out all of modern particle physics and most of population ecology at the very least. The point is, I give you experiments and give you the predictions they make, and you just repeat the same, tired lines about how my predictions aren't really predictions. Any evolutionist I've ever met would stick to these predictions as fundamental to the TOE. That brings me to my next complaint:

I suppose in a broad sense one could refer to those who believe in "TOE" as 'scientists'. I didn't know so many had chosen to back your assertion. I suppose I should be flattered.

You said my theory should cover all the necessary beliefs for someone to be an evolutionist. I said it did, and I challenged you to find one quote or counter-example anywhere that showed the incompleteness of my theory. Your response? A snide comment about how evolutionists aren't scientists, coupled with an utter failure to actually respond to what I said. This is, quite frankly, unacceptable. In terms of this particular debate, my given theory IS sufficient to qualify someone as an evolutionist. Until you can actually give a reason why this isn't true, I'll consider my point proved for lack of counter-arguments.

I can lose this debate the instant someone presents a "theory of evolution" that comes reasonably close to being scientific.

And here's the clincher. Let's be honest here. No theory would satisfy you, because your definition of "scientific" basically boils down to "not the theory of evolution." I'd like to call any readers' attention to the post by you, a little further up, made at 5:09 pm. Both of your responses to my first two experiments are literally nothing more than denying that scientists would accept the results of these experiments if they didn't match predictions:

How does this have the potential to falsify anything? If the don't change, so what? You can still claim sometimes they change, or they used to change, or imagine they might change by whatever means you choose to dream up.
...
Again, where is the potential to falsify? If they don't change, you'll just say "oh well, we need different conditions".

(Looking back, I guess you also made vague references to "the morphological change issue" and tumbleweeds, as though these constituted actual arguments.) In essence, what you're saying is that the predictions I listed don't count because the people doing experiments might not be intellectually honest. This is a ludicrous argument, and the fact that you made it shows how deep your bias against evolution runs.

The third experiment I listed was the tree experiment. I went over this above; after repeating your objectively wrong claims about "artists" being "trained" to draw all the same trees, you basically resorted to claiming that statistics can't be trusted. That claim won't get you far in any scientific journal. Incidentally, jamesf also brought up an excellent point: the theory of evolution (specifically, item three in my definition of the theory) predicts a remarkably good correlation between what we do find radiologically dated at a certain age and what textbooks tell us we should expect to find dated at that age. Do textbooks tell us exactly what we'll find during any given digging session? No - that wouldn't make any sense. Even just predicting a strong correlation between textbook and observation is still a valid prediction, though, and it has panned out.

In summary, I have given you a theory, explained the predictions of that theory, and stated (pending counter-example) that believing my theory is both necessary and sufficient for being an evolutionist. You have responded by misrepresenting the experimental method, portraying evolutionists as unscrupulous liars, and responding to all my arguments with either veiled ad hominem attacks or outright false claims. I know that I'll never convince you of anything, but I encourage any readers to skim over your last few posts and see how many of your arguments actually respond to anything I said. Not counting the condescending dismissals, I can see 3. Maybe readers will find a few more, but even with a generous margin of error, that figure is shamefully small.

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2009 - 01:50 AM

CTD, all my qualms with you can be summarized by your last post of responses. Here they are:

This is a response to my accusing you of refuting my claims with warrantless denials, devoid of any actual claim and unsubstantiated by the literature. The observant among us will notice that THIS RESPONSE IS ITSELF A WARRANTLESS DISMISSAL. When I present a basic TOE, you seem to believe that an adequate response is "that's neither scientific nor sufficient." The problem is, I've given you everything you said ought to be in a good theory. You want predictions? I listed three experiments, one for each item in the theory, and said exactly what evolutionists would predict from those experiments. Your response? Basically, "If these predictions are proven wrong, maybe the evolutionists won't admit it." This is a ludicrous response, because as I said, it could apply to any theory anywhere about anything.

View Post

It an inappropriate response, and it is not mine. It's far too true to be classified as 'ludicrous', however.

Your First Experiment does cannot falsify your first component because there is no requirement that genes always change. It is neither stated nor implied. I know that genes change. That wasn't my point. My point is that if one conducted an experiment, and they didn't, it would have no impact. Fifty misses would have no impact if there was ever one hit. One hit would demonstrate that genes might have changed in the past. No experiment can say whether or not they did.

Likewise, failure of one species to change perceptibly in a single instance does not falsify your second component.

Compare that to everyone's favourite, gravity. Failure of a rock to fall when dropped means there's a problem. In fact, every theory of gravity I know about would be falsified, although gravity theory would remain.

Would you care to fail to understand the difference?

I guess you also argued that my tree experiment doesn't count because statistics can't be trusted. This is also an absurd argument - the vast majority of experimental science hinges on statistics for things like error bars, filtering noise from the data, etc. If experiments relying on statistics cannot test legitimate predictions, then you can throw out all of modern particle physics and most of population ecology at the very least. The point is, I give you experiments and give you the predictions they make, and you just repeat the same, tired lines about how my predictions aren't really predictions. Any evolutionist I've ever met would stick to these predictions as fundamental to the TOE. That brings me to my next complaint:

Evotrees assume evolutionism is true. One cannot draw one without the assumption. Experiments need to involve science, not stealth assumptions and opinions.

And what constitutes a "failure" of the trees to "match"? OPINION! Not hard evidence. An individual's OPINION of a group of evotrees drawn up based upon the OPINIONS of the artists on which statistics should be used to obtain the best evotree.

That's not a legitimate experiment, and you know it. Not for those purposes. Evolutionologists might be interested, but that's another matter.

You said my theory should cover all the necessary beliefs for someone to be an evolutionist. I said it did, and I challenged you to find one quote or counter-example anywhere that showed the incompleteness of my theory. Your response? A snide comment about how evolutionists aren't scientists, coupled with an utter failure to actually respond to what I said. This is, quite frankly, unacceptable. In terms of this particular debate, my given theory IS sufficient to qualify someone as an evolutionist. Until you can actually give a reason why this isn't true, I'll consider my point proved for lack of counter-arguments.

Behe, smart guy. If you were born yesterday, I find it strange that you should think yourself so all-fired knowledgeable. I don't expect everyone's heard how Michael Reiss got railroaded, but come on!

And here's the clincher. Let's be honest here. No theory would satisfy you, because your definition of "scientific" basically boils down to "not the theory of evolution."

That is not my definition. I have respect for the English language.

I'd like to call any readers' attention to the post by you, a little further up, made at 5:09 pm. Both of your responses to my first two experiments are literally nothing more than denying that scientists would accept the results of these experiments if they didn't match predictions:

That's nonsense. Your first component is basically an attempt to acknowledge the science of genetics. And I wouldn't claim genetics was falsified if I found out that a given species didn't change over a few generations myself. No sane, informed person would. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Is it somehow imperative that I fully demonstrate how polywrong it is to call your plaything a "theory"? Have I not wasted enough time to suit you yet?

#47 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 February 2009 - 09:31 AM

Turns out I'm not so original.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1406

That's a relief. I didn't want to be.

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2009 - 10:18 AM

Turns out I'm not so original.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1406

That's a relief. I didn't want to be.

View Post


Don't forget one of my favorite quotes:

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." - C.S. Lewis

Originality is overrated anyway. <_<

I like that link...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1406

...I'm surprised nobody picked up on it to discuss it.

#49 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:11 AM

when you place a 286, a 486 and Pentium together, you can well tell the something is missing, the 386. If you call this predictability, then Pentium must have evolved from 286, for real. :D

It's a fallacy!!!


Your prediction should be a projection of your theory to predict the next species to be evolved, not the next bone pile to be found. As your theory is expected to be an "evolution theory", not a "bone pile game theory". :D


Anyway, if your so-called non-existing theory exists at all, then by the same token from your theory, Pentium must have been evolved from 286 for a fact. :)


If ToE is a theory, then the following must be its super theory,


As everything is changed from its previous forms, as a result, everything is evolved from its previous form, including humans....and actually anything.


Yep, disapprove it, or admit that it's your super theory. And it's even more evident then your ToE, it's with unlimited evidence, you name it. As you can never find out anything not evident to this theory.


Moreover, according to the evolutionists, the shape of the character "P" must be a straight line, because there is unlimited evidence ( unlimited <x, y> points near the bottom part of the "P" shape ) showing that.

Hello, evolutionists. Admit that unlimited evidence can't be used as the 'proof' for a theory, or accept that the shape of P is a straight line. B)

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 April 2009 - 11:06 PM

Celebrating 3 theory-free months !

(And bumping before this falls back to page 3...)

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 April 2009 - 06:30 AM

Celebrating 3 theory-free months !

(And bumping before this falls back to page 3...)

View Post

Congratulations!

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 September 2009 - 12:00 PM

Bumping again. It just isn't sporting to keep blindsiding them with something so critical.

#53 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 09:22 PM

Haven't kept up to date with this thread, so my apologies if I'm going over already crossed ground. I've read the OP and I think what CTD is looking for is pretty simple. At it's core, evolutionary theory says:

change + heredity + selection = evolution.

That's the most simple explanation of evolution I've heard, and it seems to hold true regardless of what kind of evolution you're talking about (eg. biological vs technological).

Regards,

Arch.

#54 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 11 September 2009 - 02:18 AM

I think CTD wants an Amazon link to a book called "Complete Evolutionary Theory" by All The Scientists In The World.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing exists.

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 September 2009 - 04:24 AM

I think CTD wants an Amazon link to a book called "Complete Evolutionary Theory" by All The Scientists In The World.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing exists.

View Post

I think CTD and such a request shows the true nature of evolution as a pseudoscience. It's not like core issues are solved and peripheral issues exist. It's the core issues that are vaporware.

#56 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 11 September 2009 - 09:31 AM

change + heredity + selection = evolution.

That's the most simple explanation of evolution I've heard, and it seems to hold true regardless of what kind of evolution you're talking about (eg. biological vs technological).

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

Isn't there a rule that evolution cannot be described as "change over time"... which is what Arch essentially said here?

#57 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:10 AM

Here is another experiment where evolution has great predictive power.

1. Go to 100 random spots in the world that have fossil material and perform radiometric dating. Use one of the techniques described here in Table 1 depending on the rough date range and the material used.
http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

2. Make sure that that the date is appropriate for the method (e.g. a meaningful date for Carbon dating is between about 200 and 30,000 years). Other methods have other date ranges that provide meaningful answers. Repeat this process several times to see if the date is reliable (in most places it is).

3. From the date that you get, grab a book on paleontology and predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and predict the kind that you will not find.

4. Pick up any creationist book and use that to predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and the kind that you will not find.

This is the general approach leads to accurate predictions (it is the basis of paleontology). The approach has also led to the discovery of new transitional fossils. Neil Shubin went off to a specific place in the arctic that had rocks from fresh water streams that had dated from at 375 million years. They were looking for animals that bridged the transition between fish and tretrapod. They found Tiktaalik where their theory predicted the fossils could be found.
http://revcom.us/a/1...terview-en.html

This next year they are going to visiting rocks between 370 million and 365 million years in an attempt to find fossils of animals closer to the tetrapod end of the transition. There are no guarantees, but these sorts of predictions have been made hundreds of times and I'll bet the success is better than any creationist model out there. Anyone want to predict what they will find this year?

James
Posted Image

View Post


Hi James,

Hope all is going well.

You make a good point. Evolution would expect to find a more advanced tetrapod at the end of an strata. You made this argument about Tiktaalik which I found compelling.

I know that debates are confrontational in nature and it seams like the other side is deliberately argumentative, obtuse or belligerent. I just wanted you to know that we are listening even though it isn't obvious.

I find your posts to well thought out and logical. I may not agree with you but it does get me thinking.

Bruce

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 September 2009 - 03:08 PM

If anyone is uncertain about the subject here, in any way at all, they should review the first few posts in the thread.

#59 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 17 October 2009 - 06:28 AM

I would like to bump this thread once a month if necessary. I presume a moderator will let me know if this is unacceptable.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 November 2009 - 08:35 AM

Also, please don't respond that item three has not been directly observed. I know it hasn't been directly observed, but it's still a theory. That's really all this thread is about: showing that the theory of evolution at least exists. I think I've just accomplished that.

View Post


That would be incorrect, and a major misconception. That would make it nothing better than a model (and a weak one at that ).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users